S&W 686 vs. Ruger GP100

[Nightcrawler]

Okay, this gets debated time and time again, so let's cut to the heart of it. Which medium framed revolver, of the two, would you prefer, and why?

Ruger GP-100

S&W 686

Both are reinforced medium framed .357 Magnum chambered revolvers. Both replaced their smaller predecessors (the K-Frame and the Six-series), and both are highly praised.

The 686 is available in a seven-shot format, which is always handy. I, for one, am always up for getting more efficiency out of a given weapon, and an extra shot goes a long way towards that.

The GP100, on the other hand, is not unlike what I'd imagine a Kalashnikov revolver being like. Mechanically simple, very rugged, and easy to field strip.

The 686 is still made from forgings, but has MIM internals now. The GP100 is cast, but is still impossibly strong. They both weigh about the same and are about the same size. Matter of fact, they'll both fit into the same more generic holsters.

So, which is your choice, and why? Oh, feel free to throw in some pictures while you're at it.

 

[HighVelocity]

I voted for the 686. I've had two GP100's in the past, 1 SS and 1 blue, both 4" and was not able to achieve the accuracy that I get out of my two 686's. I also like the feel of the trigger and the cycle time better on the S&W.

Nothing against the Ruger, but in this particular model comparison, it's S&W for me.

 

[timothy75]

For hunting the 686, for fighting the GP. The only reason I choose the GP for defense is the grip falls into my hand faster and is the perfect angle for my stance. I can hit paper plates at 5 yards without using the sights on the GP, I cannot with the 686.

 

[Blue .45]

I had a blue GP with adj. sights. I liked the interchangable front sights on that model. Mine had a good trigger out of the box and I was able to shoot nice groups with it. However, my brother's GP had a slightly heavier trigger pull. He also has a 686 which also had a heavy trigger pull, but after a trigger job, it was light and smooth. In my opinion, even with a trigger job, a 686 isn't $125 better than a GP100. At least for my purpose.

 

[Tom C.]

I got a 4" SS GP100 several months ago. I smoothed up the action slightly and replaced the trigger return spring with a Wolff spring. Now it has a very nice trigger and is very accurate.
I have a 30 yr. old S&W Model 27-2. It has a very nice trigger and is also very accurate. I have no experience with a 686.

 

[Nortonics]

I'd prefer the 686 - by far. My wallet preferred the GP-100 though...

 

[defiant73a]

Current production: The GP100 is a no-brainer thanks to Smith's klutzy internal lock, questionable MIM parts and spotty QC. The GP100's trigger has absolutely no trouble competing with Smith's current frame-mounted firing pin models (and will smooth up in use very quickly).

Vintage: If I could find a vintage 686 (no end shake and no timing problems), I'd probably pick it up unless I was planning a shooting a steady of heavy loads--the GP100 will go a lot longer without developing timing problems and end shake (if end shake can ever be problem with the GP100).

 

[Lucky Derby]

I voted 686 but only if it is a PRE LOCK PRE MIM version. The Smith is smoother in my experince. If we are talking current production, then th4e Ruger would get my vote.

 

[Confederate]

The 686 is strong and very accurate. The Ruger is strong and not as....

As noted, the trigger's better and it's a beautiful gun.

 

[ceetee]

Without knowing anything about pre-MIM and post-MIM, and really not thinking the lock is gonna effect my shooting any, I voted 686. I have one that I bought in 1986 (geez I'm getting old) and it's my favorite shooter, bar none. I do like the GP 100's factory grips better.

Neither one is a bad choice, really .

 

[charby]

I have a GP-100 and I have shot a 686 quite a bit.

I like the GP-100 because you can pick them up slightly used for around $300.

Other than that to me their isn't much of a difference between the two.

It is also rare for me to buy a new gun because there are good prices on hardly used ones out there. Plus you don't feel back when you scratch it.

-C

 

[miko]

In a similar situation I chose 686+ - mostly for 7th round.

I replaced the factory grips with Hogue Bantam ones that cut a lot from the handle length, to make it more concealable.

miko

 

[Ala Dan]

S&W

Manufactuer's of quality products, great customer service~!

 

[10-Ring]

IF both have triggers you like & can live with, & both fit you well & both you shoot equally well...I'd go w/ the one you can get the better deal on

 

[Skpotamus]

I voted GP100. I don't see why the S&W is a couple of hundred dollars more than the ruger. My father in law has the 686, I have a GP100. We can both hit the 50 yard 1'x1' steel target at the range. Neither have had any problems. I can shoot mine a touch faster, but that's due to a trigger job I put on mine.

I do like S&W's warranty service and their policy itself blows rugers away (ruger dropped their written warranties a while back), but I don't think many revolvers will actually ever need it.

 

[MCgunner]

I like both revolvers a lot, but the superior design strength of the GP100 won my vote.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Definitely the 686, but only if I could get a pre-lock model. There is no way I would buy one with the lock.

 

[Marshall]

I went with a GP-100 with a 6" tube.

I wanted a 6" strong 357 revolver. I wanted one I could take hunting as apposed to my 44 Mag's and 45 Colt. I bought it because I know I can shoot any 357 load I desire and have no trouble. Maybe I could with a 686 but, I knew I could with a Ruger. Frankly, I haven't seen too many 686 Smiths with a nice stainless steel finish either. I'm sure they're out there but the ones I kept seeing don't look very uniform. The barrel doesn't match the frame and just looks like S&W doesn't care much about the finished look of the gun. Why do I give a damn for a hunting revolver? Cause I like to look at them too.

Now, my GP-100 is no more accurate than my Smith's but I'm not shooting competitions either, I just need to hit a deer in the vital regions. The trigger on all of my Rugers is not as sweet as any of my Smiths either but, I seem to hit where I aim.

Both are great guns and make good products overall.

Here's an old POS picture, I need to take some new ones. I really like this gun.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I've owned both...sorta a 686 and a Security Six. The Smith had a better trigger but that was outweighed by the better feel ruggedness and even style of the Ruger. They both shot good but I just liked the Ruger better.

 

[scott5]

GP-100

Hello all,
Well between a 686 and a Gp-100, I don't have the money for 686 right now but between these two:


I would have to say that I like the Dan Wesson with the interchangeable barrels the best.

I know its not on the list but, I bought a 586 4" from a friend once, and sold it a few days latter without shooting it(What the H... was I thinking):

Oh well life goes on.

 

[Brian Williams]

Two things
1. Looks
The Rugers looks heavier because it was designed for casting and strength, S&W designed when Style was part of strength.

2. Push in or front.
The cylinder release differs enough to bother some, Rugers are a push in button, and S&Ws are a push front. I prefer the push front.


Ok 3.
Trigger spring
Rugers have a coil spring which tends to stack as it reaches full cock and the S&Ws have a leaf spring which tend to have a more consistent pull thru.

 

[miko]

I like both revolvers a lot, but the superior design strength of the GP100 won my vote.

Hmm... I keep hearing about that "superior design strength" and felt "ruggedness".
Does it actually compensate for the inferior strength of Ruger's casting vs. S&W's forging? Have there been any objective tests done or do people just try to "eyeball" the properties of metal and stress distributions, etc.?

miko

 

[Legionnaire]

Can't comment on the 686, as I've never shot one. When I started looking for a midsized .357, I came across a well broken-in (smooth) GP-100 that fit my hand well and accurate enough that any practical inaccuracy is probably me more than the gun. Bought it, like it, and have never looked back. Had I found a 686 first, I might have bought that, although I doubt I could have found one for the same price as the Ruger.

So no "definitely X is better than Y" from me. I'm very happy with the GP100, and plan to keep it a long, long time.

 

[MCgunner]

Hmm... I keep hearing about that "superior design strength" and felt "ruggedness".
Does it actually compensate for the inferior strength of Ruger's casting vs. S&W's forging? Have there been any objective tests done or do people just try to "eyeball" the properties of metal and stress distributions, etc.?

Can you quantify your supposid superior strength of a forged receiver or is this a wive's tale you're reciting? Investment casting is as old as the Egyptians and it produces very strong castings when done to the level of QC that Ruger does it. We're not talking MIM here.

The GP100 is entirely different, as was the Security Six, in that it has no side plate. The frame is stronger just as a single action's frame is stronger with no side plate. There's twice the metal there to be stressed. In addition, the GP100 locks the crane on closing, not just the cylinder pin. It is a solid and ridiculously strong revolver, the strongest DA revolver design in the firearms world. Also, a side benefit I always liked with my Security Six, it is easier to strip. The trigger group just drops out the bottom for detail cleaning. I also prefer coiled springs, though I've never had a problem with Smith's flat springs.

 

[Marshall]

Hmm... I keep hearing about that "superior design strength" and felt "ruggedness".
Does it actually compensate for the inferior strength of Ruger's casting vs. S&W's forging? Have there been any objective tests done or do people just try to "eyeball" the properties of metal and stress distributions, etc.?

I know that certain ammo manufactures recommend only shooting certain heavy loads through Rugers. Whether or not that includes 357 Mag, I don't know? There are some other models of certain brands allowed on certain calibers such as, the Raging Bull of Taurus and Dan Wesson Revolvers. What it does tell me though is, Rugers are strong products regardless of how they casted or forged and certain ammo companies specifically stress this. S&W's are not included on these lists/disclosurers. I strongly imagine this is for a reason that the ammo companies have encountered during design and testing. If you're curious, you might contact them and ask for details.